unclevlad

His snarky one-liners, when the audience's reaction was a bit underwhelming, were often the highlight of the skit.

For those of you who lack the depth of experience we have......

http://www.thequotationstation.com/C/Carnac-The-Magnificent/page1.html

30 minutes ago, slikmar said:

Apparently the players union is trying to say its because of the pitch clock. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, MLB, DON'T LISTEN. The pitch clock, IMO, is the best rule change to hit MLB in the last 20 years. Games are now actually watchable.

From the ESPN story on this:

Quote

Major League Baseball pushed back on the union's statement, pointing to a three-decade increase in pitcher injuries despite the clock being implemented just last season. MLB said that UCL surgeries at the minor league level actually declined in 2022, the first year that the pitch timer was used across the minors. The league believes the increase in max-effort pitching and focus on pitch design have contributed to the rise in injuries more than the clock.

The union's position is utterly ridiculous.  IMO they're torching their own reputation with BS like this.  I remember a really good round table on MLB Network...yeah, in 2014.  Costas, Smoltz, Kaat, Tom Verducci, Dr. James Andrews had an interview.  Article here:
https://www.mlb.com/news/expert-panel-headlines-mlb-network-roundtable/c-74779990

It includes this:

Quote

"The basic thing that parents out there and coaches and players alike need to know is if you throw with fatigue at a young age - in high school, for example, or youth baseball - you have a 36-to-1 chance of injuring your shoulder or elbow. … Fatigue could be event fatigue, seasonal fatigue or year-round fatigue, so it's a big problem."

 

"What we really found out is that [high school patients] only had one week off each year from competitive baseball and that one week was - you could guess what - between Christmas and New Year's. So they're playing year-round baseball - that's the number one risk factor in youth baseball."

 

"If you take a coat hanger and you bend it enough times, what happens? It breaks clean, and then of course that injury didn't begin with that last bend, it began with all of those multiple, multiple bends. It's a developmental ligament and the stress that it will take is only about 80-miles per hour, so our high-velocity throwers in high school - unless they've got great genetics - are really suspect to really injure their ligament along the way."

Has this changed significantly since then?  I very, very seriously doubt it.  

Tony Clark is doing the players NO favors whatsoever with this totally ignorant remark.

Excuse me, I need to let my blood pressure go down.  

Nope, that was Carnac the Magnificent.  

We may see a major restart about the debate about pitching wear and tear.  

Shane Bieber (Cleveland) just underwent Tommy John...after 2 starts this season.

And now...Spencer Strider (Atlanta) had an MRI showing UCL damage.  He'll be re-evaluated soon.

That's two #1 starters.  Bieber has a Cy Young...in the Covid year, so a bit diluted, but he's been 4th and 7th too.  Strider was 4th last year.

This is the 7th such, already.

https://www.fangraphs.com/roster-resource/injury-report?groupby=injury

And look how many pitchers got hurt last season, and are still questionable for '24.  TJ recovery is 15-18 months.  Then scroll down to the Elbow category.  Lots of these are 15 day DL...not great, but not devastating. as long as they come back in something close to 15 days.  But 7 of these (including Cole) are on the 60 day DL.

ROUGH night for the Red Sox.  They're beating the Angels 5-1...altho the Angels have the bases loaded with 1 out now, in the bottom of the 6th, thanks to Sox mistakes...but...

2 players have been HBP, on their hands.  One on a finger, one squarely on the back of the hand.  They both stayed in, but there's a very good chance they'll miss some time.

Oh, and the Angels just hit a slam to tie it....and as things would have it?  One of their runners was HBP...on the hand.

But the Sox' woes...SS Trevor Story dove for a ball in the hole, and landed badly.  He was writhing in pain, and was taken out.  Report's a shoulder injury, that's all...that might be anything from day to day all the way up to season-ending (torn labrum requiring surgery).  Even a bad separation might mean 2-3 weeks.

EDIT:  final count, 5 batters got hit.  Last two weren't in problem areas, thankfully.  

And it turned into a rather late night of things.  The game started about 25 minutes late, as it was the Angels' home opener.  (Shohei was acknowledged as one of the team's award winners, and reportedly got roundly booed.  Can't imagine why........)  Then the trainers had to come out 3 separate times.  And it was a sloppy game...the HBPs of course, lots of walks, Sox had 3 errors.  

But everyone knows the best corn is in Kentucky.

What.....who cares about EATING it?????

14 hours ago, death tribble said:

EDIT: Amended year. Must have been tired this morning

Eh, probably the tea you had.  Coffee Rules!!!

15 hours ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I really like the Rolemaster version of resurrection.  You can only be raised within a short time of death, before the soul leaves the body.  However, if you use certain rituals, magic, herbs, etc you can extend the amount of time a soul remains in the body before you can be raised again.

Raise Dead in D&D had a limit of 1 day per caster level, and the body had to be whole;  it did NOT regrow missing limbs.  Resurrection was 2 levels higher...and probably should've been elevated even more in 3E, when clerics went from 7 to 9 spell levels, but they probably chose to not break existing characters.  Resurrection worked with any fraction of a body part.

Both spells actually were also expensive...even if cast by a party member.  5000 gp for Raise, 10,000 for Resurrect.  This was less than effective in practice, tho, because practically no one used the wealth/treasure rules as written, they gave out more.  And there were rules about getting an NPC to cast spells for the party...it got expensive for normal spells, much less these two.  The rules said, IIRC, that 7th level spells draw the direct attention of the deity, or at least of a high-end servant...who can darn well say NO.  Which is a really good way for the cleric to hose himself...so he may need something more than mere money.

There's no uniform approach;  I'd call D&D's a middle-of-the-road approach, where the Schlock might be on the Trivial end, and "no, it can't be done" on the other...IIRC, Shadowrun.  

Oh...important date just ahead!  

Sunday, April 7th is National Beer Day!

Well, that ices my plans for tomorrow...chili supplies for Saturday, and of course good chili has to have beer in it.  

Hadn't actually looked at the standings...mmmm...

Winless:  Mets and Marlins.  Tigers came back from 3-0 down in a makeup game earlier, got it tied, scored 3 in the 11th.  

1 win:  Rockies, A's, White Sox.  OK, as noted above, I don't think many people would be surprised if the A's challenged the record for most losses.  The White Sox were a wet mess last year.  The Rockies combine an exceptionally difficult home playing environment...it skews everything, and the effects, I've heard the former players say, can linger when you leave...with poor personnel choices.

OTOH, ugh...Yankees are 6-1.  It's seriously debatable how long that can last, given their starting pitching issues.  Pirates are 5-1, but it's only 6 games...and they started well last year.  Detroit's 5-0.

And the Dodgers have actually lost 2.  This might be one of their poorer stretches....  LORD, that lineup is terrifying.

IIRC, the setup where it became Really Sweet was

a)  fairly strong...35 END, IIRC.

b)  invisible Extra Limbs with Stretching...force limbs.  Stretching had "does not cross intervening STR" because hitting them really wouldn't do anything.  Might've also included Instant.

c)  Teleport

d)  force field

e)  TINY MP with 1 DC HAs (normal, AVAD Power Def, AVAD Power Def, does BODY);  the rest of the damage was MA DCs.  This also led to a Martial Flash attack...versus Power Def, IIRC.  

So the STR was personal END, the powers were END reserve.  The stats gave a reasonable baselne END and REC to cover the STR, altho I think I bought it up *some*...but buying for the powers?  Nope.  For that, it's cheaper to buy the END reserve.

I think I've also done it for...well, not wimpy mage types, but energy projectors rarely have *really* high STR.  15 STR is 200 kg;  I looked around and lifting 2x your body weight is elite lifting...ergo, not super.  This is for supers, and the background is, heroes are *trained*...and that includes extensive PT.  So the 15 STR is still fundamentally appropriate...but clearly not exploiting figured stats.  Then again, I'm setting up for higher-powered supers, I give myself points to play with.  I dislike trying to fit competent at magic into a 200 point structure...because I really dislike running the standard stereotype.  Monte Cook made comments in his Arcana Unearthed/Evolved books using a mage character, that I often loved, assaulting the D&D tropes.  Mages have to carry packs and hike dozens of miles every day.  They only have a couple spells per day at low levels.  Yet they *ignore* basic PT and at least SOME weapons work?  Even if it's common weapons?  Plus, the other comment I loved was wearing robes.  Huh?  Oh, so advertise your strengths and weaknesses, and wear stuff that isn't exactly travel-friendly?  And the last...I can't remember the exact quote, and it's a sidebar, so finding it is a pain, but it's something like

A wizard who uses his magic only to slay monsters, while eating cold trail rations and sleeping rough, Does Not Get It.  With all the power at his disposal, why endure privation?

It actually echoes something I've felt, that's largely peculiar to D&D's incredibly limited magical approach...there's virtually no everyday magic.  I *love* everyday magic.

Mmm...sorry for the digression.  We now return you to our regularly scheduled......if totally derailed...thread.....

Well, the local paper is the Sacramento Bee, so it's thematically appropriate.

And Sacramento has a minor league team...they're gonna try to share the field, well, we'll see how well THAT works...the Sacramento River Cats.

So it's all about the A-B-C's....

EDIT...amusing line from an article about the managers on the early hot seat...about Mark Kotsay, the A's manager.

Quote

Obviously, you can't blame Kotsay for the rank and cynical efforts at sabotage by John Fisher, the sport's worst owner (and a competitive category, that one). 

<snip>

To repeat, the strip-mined roster is to blame for all of this, but managers are typically the first scapegoat in line.  

I

53 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

That is one reason I actually like getting rid of figured stats.  It lowers the incentive to buy up primary stats.  It seemed like every character had at least a 23 ST and 23 CON including the supposedly frail magic based character. 

Hard to say 'no' to the extra REC, END, and STUN...especially because they were so expensive to buy up.  It could actually be *cheaper* to buy an END reserve to cover certain things, rather than buy up the figured characteristics.  

Mmm...that reminds me of something you might want.  It's damage-based END costs for defenses...AVP I, page 62.  You trade off END for STUN...so, ok, your head's not spinning per se, but after a while you just get beaten to exhaustion.  It's a -1/2 limitation if it's 1 END per 5 STUN or fraction thereof, by the book...so it doesn't use the rounding rules.  6 STUN blocked?  2 END, not 1.  It's a -1/4 limitation if it's 1 END per 10 STUN.

You could use this with negation or reduction...at least to a degree.  You might want a complex combo like this...I'm assuming 12d6...

10 defense

2 Negation (no limits)

then 5 or 6 dice of negation that's STUN only, and damage based END cost;  OR, 50% DR that's at least damage based END cost...may or may not be stun only

The DR has the advantage that you don't get stunned...as long as you have the END to burn.  When that's gone?  Uh...oh..............

If you go with the DBEC on the negation, the trick would be, you'd want to count the pips, not just the BODY, because that can alter the END you have to spend.  This isn't a case where I'd use "standard effect" principles.  If that'd be a pain, then go with the DR.  DBEC actually feels like it was made for DR.

Note that there are details about how DBEC works that I haven't mentioned....

40 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

Constitution is relatively cheap these days but still, that's 30 points on just not being stunned (and minor side things like change environment, etc).  But yes that might be more a holdover to when a point of CON bought you like 4½ points of stats.  With good defenses, 30 should be more than enough to prevent a stunning attack in most cases.

Well, not quite.  10 points of CON gave 2 ED, 2 REC, 20 END, and 5 STUN.  That's 21 points...for +10 CON. 

2 minutes ago, LoneWolf said:

With figured stats buying a 40 CON cost 60 points but gave you 63 points of figured stats.  If you bumped it up to 43 CON, it cost you 66 points for 71 points in figured stats.   Bricks with figured stats cost less than other types of characters.  If I bought 45 STR and 43 CON, it cost me 101 points and I got 117 points in figured stats.   You could then buy down your END to save even more points. 

And higher-STR martial artists, because they'd buy the DEX to get the free CV.  That's the big one.  The SPD increase was paid for...DEX is 3 points per in 5E, and that 3rd point directly pays for the SPD.  it's the CV...6 points for +3 DEX gives +10 points for the CV.

STR and CON actually gave about the same *net* freebies...STR gave PD, REC, STUN, and let's not forget, Leap.  CON gave ED, REC, and STUN...and END.  But the END boost is covered by CON's higher base cost.  It's 2 per, not 1 per as in 6E, so +10 CON, in this sense, gives +11 in free characteristic points.  +10 STR gives +15 in freebies...and selling back the Leap may well be rather painless.  

Quote

Fortunately for Lucas and the people of Kansas City, the Chiefs won't be going anywhere any time soon. The team's lease at Arrowhead runs through Jan. 31, 2031, which means the two sides have just under seven years to get things figured out. 

uh...huh...

And how long have the A's and Oakland been squabbling?

For stuff like this...ONLY 7 years means it's near-panic time.  This stuff NEVER resolves quickly.

I can't blame the voters.  The club gets the lion's share of the benefits...you know bloody darn well they'll raise ticket prices and parking fees and the like, and the overall benefit to the taxpayers is...pretty low.

I think buying such high CON was a holdover from figured characteristics, because that also bought you 6 REC, 60 END, and 15 STUN...and remember, those were much more expensive.  REC was 2 per (1 per in 6E), END was 1 point for 2 (instead of 1 point for 5) and STUN is 1 point per.  I also think some of this is part of the figured-characteristics trap, if you will...that you're getting *so much* for buying it up that it becomes your idee fixe.  Cuz...remember...40 CON is still 60 points.  When I consider 5E builds, it's something I've fallen into, for sure.

I also question how well thought out many of those builds are.  Because...fine, you'll never get stunned, but overall, you're likely a lot easier to KO.  Yeah, you can take *one* 30-STUN shot...but the 2nd?  

And that's with figured characteristics.  Without it, high CON's cheap-ish, sure, but its major bonus is adjusting your stunned threshold.  OK, there's a small advantage for CON-based rolls, but those are unusual, and you get into diminishing returns after 14- anyway.  The advantage of the high CON is, ok, you don't get stunned by *any* form of attack...a 30 CON means you're not stunned by a 7d6 Blast vs. Power Def...without needing the wonky rules related to Damage Negation and Reduction.  (If I have 50% Energy DR and 25% Physical DR, which one applies versus the PowD blast?)  But this only goes so far...again, it's not helping you absorb multiple strikes and stay upright.

A PC can take the automaton abilities, but they're intended to model things you have to bash into smithereens, bone dust, or metal fragments.  Takes No Stun is very expensive...and it triples the cost of defenses.  You have to buy those to pretty much the same level as the 'normal' build...but at high cost.  On top of the baseline TNS cost.  I've played around with this a bit...in many cases in supers lit, the duplicator creates constructs, not biological duplicates.  If they get obliterated...well, that's what they're for.  I was even blowing off the Altered Duplicates, so long as the only real change was shifting the defenses to Automaton style, and possibly adding Life Support.  IIRC...I never got something I was all that happy with, but that was some time ago.  I've worked out a few more tricks since then, maybe I could get it to work.

RaR has enough options that I think we need some clarification about exactly what form of RaR you're asking about...and preferably, which edition.  It'll be quicker than guessing the form you mean.

You don't have any choice.  You automatically lose your next action;  the only thing you can do is recover from getting stunned.  If nothing else, it means you're losing the attack.  Plus, until you can recover from being stunned, you're at 1/2 DCV.  And, at the end of the phase you're stunned, all your Constant powers that aren't persistent *stop*.  Were you flying?  You're falling now.  Bye-bye force field.

Yeah, character SPDs are a whole nuther thread.   Probably not even buried that much;  IIRC it wasn't that long ago.

That DR works against even advantaged damage is a point in its favor...but also, probably an argument for *replacing* it.  Because there is no counter.  The value of its application against AVADs, which I personally REALLY dislike, is gonna depend on how often those attacks get used against the character.  In both cases, tho...the lack of an effective response is also something to avoid.  You make the case...that's why it's pricey.  Note that applying it to a villain is much less of an issue, because the final point total for a villain is more flexible anyway.  

Actually...the hole for DR is autofire.  Multiple hits will accumulate fast because each one is doing a decent amount.  If I'm allowed 10d6 AF, and I can get 2 hits, considerably more will get through than if I have simple defenses or damage negation.  Negation applies fully to each round, so it's 7d6 twice...call it 19, with 15 DEF.  OTOH, 15 DEF reduces each 10d6 to 20 STUN...which drops to 15 each.

If you're gonna go this way, then 50% DR tends to be the sweet spot, when DR is the anchor of your defenses.  25% is just too low, IMO, and 75% just becomes too expensive.  You need *some* defense even with 75%

2 minutes ago, Grailknight said:

1/4 DR = 3d6 DN so DR is better when x-3 DC's of attack gets more than 10 STUN past defenses, 1/2 DR = 6d6 DN so becomes better at 21 STUN past x-6 DC's of attack and 3/4 DR goes against 12d6 DN so you need x-12 DC's of attack achieving 42 STUN past defenses. In most cases straight PD/ED is more effective but if we want to get some STUN past defenses DR will do that at all 3 levels whereas DN may stop some lower attacks completely.

 

No, this doesn't work.  The relevant STUN computations are

DR:  0.75 * (Nd6 - DEF)

DN:  (N-3)d6 - DEF

Note that this is the STUN you take, so what you want to solve for is N such that DR < DN.

So, 

0.75 * (Nd6 - DEF) < (N-3)d6 - DEF

Nd6 - DEF < 4/3* (N-3)dt - 4/3 DEF --> (4/3N - 4)d6 - 4/3 DEF

Nd6 < (4/3N - 4)d6 - 1/3 DEF

Nd6 < 4/3Nd6 - 4d6 - 1/3 DEF 

4d6 + 1/3 DEF < (1/3N) d6

and finally

12d6 + DEF < Nd6.  

So with NO defense, they even out at 12d6.  At 12 DEF, N rises to 15.  At 12 DEF, you'll get 12 STUN past defenses at 7d6.  So with DR, 10d6 - 12 is 23 STUN...so 17-18 gets past. 

Or to simplify a bit...DR and DN mean nothing for the first S dice, where S is the dice to saturate your base defenses.  (So S = 4 for 14 DEF, just to keep things neat.)  Then DR < DN when 

0.75 * N < N - 3 --> N <  4/3N -4 --> N > 12  or

0.5 * N < N - 6  --> N < 2N - 12 --> N > 12  or

0.25 * N < N - 12 --> N < 4N - 48 --> N > 16

25% DR is only removing the equivalent of 1d6 for every 4 dice of damage...only the dice actually DOING something.  The actual dice of the attack has to be higher, likely notably higher with the stronger DR.

And there's the other side here, that these single-point computations don't capture...the average damage.  For this, the base attack is 12d6 and the DEF is 14.  Then for reduction, roll 12d6, and I believe the rounding is correct...it's computed as FLOOR(0.75 * AfterDefs + 0.49).  FLOOR is the largest integer < the number...so FLOOR(0.75 * 17) is 12.75.  +0.49 gets it over 13...so it's 13.  OTOH, FLOOR(0.75*18) is 13.5...+0.49 is still 13.99 and so it's still 13.  

The number at the end is the total expectation, for all rolls...it's the average STUN taken.

Now for 3d6 Negation, we do much the same, but I'm only rolling 9d6.  It's simpler now...just subtract the DEF.

So, 3 more STUN on average, at the 12d6 level.

If you want to play with this, like change the DEF or change the dice...I copied the 2 left hand columns...the roll total and frequency...from AnyDice.  Yeah, I'm skipping some of the VERY low probability cases...but 58+ on 12d6 is about 1/3 of 1%, and 46+ on 9d6 is about 1/4 of 1%.  Same on the other end...26 or less on 12d6 is the same probability as 58 or more.  Tiny.

So...first 2 columns are just pasted in from AnyDice's Normal Distribution view, which has the exact distribution of each roll.  After DEF just subtracts the DEF you picked. This is the STUN you take for the negation case;  the dice were already removed.  For the DR, the final STUN is computed using the FLOOR(0.75 * AfterDefs + 0.49), as mentioned above.  Then Expectation is simply the STUN taken * the probability of the roll...and the total expectation, the average damage that will be taken, is the sum of the expectations of all possible cases.

Last, you still have to concern yourself with the frequency with which you get stunned.  Assuming 23 CON, it's at 24 net STUN.  That's 46 STUN with the DR, 38 STUN with the DN.  That's 28% vs 12.3%.

And sure, if you go up to 15 or 16 dice...the DR will pull even, but you're facing 75 point attacks with about 35 points of defenses *that aren't even efficient*.  That's why it doesn't matter to me...that, in itself, had DARN well be rare, because it's such a gross mismatch.

20 minutes ago, Steve said:

While I appreciate the suggestion of using killing attacks, that’s not quite what I was looking for. That seems more like the comic book The Authority. That’s much darker than I was intending.

 

Consider two Kryptonians fighting. They can do some BODY damage to each other, but a fight takes quite a while as they don’t seem to be stunning each other.

That's not a good example.  Those are plot device levels.  But to take the points

--they do very little BODY.  

--they also do very little STUN.

OK, then

a)  lots of negation, mostly;  a bit of armor, because the negation dice have to be less than the attack dice, so the armor makes up for it so BODY happens on a good roll.

b)  Significant armor, 75% DR.  Because it's not just avoiding getting stunned, you have to consider getting KOd.  At sane power levels, you may only drop the armor a couple points;  you *might* be able to drop the DR to 50%.

c)  Significant armor and STUN-only Negation.  This is the easiest to *tailor* to confidently get to what you want.

5 minutes ago, Gauntlet said:

One thing I have noticed was that many players consider the only type of defense being PD, ED, or Power but there is another type of defense that is rather major. This being DCV. Many characters may rely on not getting hit rather than just being able to take the attack. High DCV, along with high DEX rolls for Dive for Cover, can make the character rather tough to beat. Sometime even tougher than that high Brick with High Defenses.

Yeah, this is another angle.  More generally, when you don't get hit as often...could be the energy projector at range 6, not just the martial artist with DCV 11.  Here, getting knocked out is much less of a concern;  the defenses want to be tailored to avoid being stunned, mostly.

NYT Op-ed was written a couple weeks ago now, but a "hey, have you seen this?" email just arrived.

The lead:
 

Quote

The Trumpification of Kristi Noem
The South Dakota governor’s new teeth are just the latest step in a very MAGA makeover.

And just this week, Cyg posted the Weird History Channel's Gatorade vs. PowerAde video.  Gatorade had that really good, effective, and catchy jingle.

Yes, well, conflate the 2, and we have the New Republican Jingle...

Sometimes I dream
That he is me
You've got to see that's how I dream to be
I dream I move, I dream I groove
Like Trump
If I could be like Trump

1 hour ago, Gauntlet said:

I really don't think they are trying to get rid of Damage Reduction and replace it with Damage Negation. That goes against one of the greater strengths of Hero. Having both gives you more options that do work in different ways.

The ONLY time I've considered DR is when I've got points to waste.  It's that bad, mechanically.  And ok, it's more options, but at the cost of system bloat.  I don't think they'll eliminate DR either...but that's because there's extreme inertia to completely remove anything from prior editions.  Tweak?  Sure.  Remove?  Rare...unless it's just too messed up, like Transfer.  DR isn't broken, it's just too rigid and inefficient to be anything but narrow, niche power.

1 hour ago, LoneWolf said:

Don’t get me wrong I am a big fan of damage negation, but it is better at creating a high threshold of damage.  It is great for characters that are immune to damage below a specific point.  Damage Reduction is better for the character that is not immune but can take a lot of damage and still keep functioning. It really depends on how you want your character to work.  If you want to be immune completely immune to small arms but take damage vs larger attacks DN works better.  

 

A character with moderate defenses and 50% DR can probably take one hit from DR Destroyer and still be able to stay in the combat.  That same character can be nicked and dimed by enough agents. The character with the same defense and -6 DC of DN will completely ignore the agents, but likely be taken out by the same single hit by DR Destroyer.  Both concepts are equally valid.        

 

If you scale up the defenses the results show similar results.  With 15 defense vs a 12d6 attack 50% DR results in 13.5 points of damage, -6 DC of damage negation results in 6. At 15d6 the DR damage is 18.75, where the DN is 16.5.  At 18d6, the DR damage is 24, and the DN becomes 24.  
  
For the same cost the results of DR and DN are fairy similar
 

That's 50% DR.  You're right...that's a viable approach for fringe attacks, particularly for characters with higher DCV and recovery.    But start estimating how many hits the character can take before he drops...against more routine damage.  You're studying only 1 specific aspect...getting stunned...and even at that, your own numbers show that you're only doing better when the attacks are significantly higher than usual.

It might be interesting to do a detailed simulation, such as Grail suggested.  A vs. B, where they're basically identical...except that A has reduction, while B has negation at equal points.  Now run the combat, phase by phase.  Let both attack at the same time;  obviously going first would be huge.

--each side rolls to hit...11- for both.  Attacks will be equal, and *damage will be rolled.*  For the negation, the dice just get removed before rolling.  

--if a character is stunned, he loses his next phase...so the other guy gets a free attack.

--to throw in as much as possible, we'll include recoveries...both post-12 and, when necessary, after KOs

--the winner is declared when an opponent is KOd...because that means 0 DCV for that phase, and he's taking 2x STUN automatically.  Draws are of course possible, should both be KOd at the same time.

I can't think of anything else...?  But I might code this up.  I am a purist, so I'll use a statistically good RNG, if I do, and run at least a few thousand 'combats'.  Can probably parameterize it...base defense, attack strength, REC, even the basic attack roll they both use...as I said, getting hit more often should penalize the DR character, so it's a legit parameter.

EDIT:  oh, there's something.  The fights start on 12, as usual...then let em run 2 full turns after that.  If both are up, call it a draw.  Need a termination condition in any case.  So that means I need to set SPD...that can be another parameter to tweak, altho probably one of the last knobs I'd adjust.

Well, in system terms, Resurrection is just an adder (to Regen) in 5E and 6E.  Your regen remains in place, kicking it at its defined rate.  When you reach positive BODY, or when you're stabilized even tho at negative BODY, you wake back up.  The rules state there should be a method to prevent the resurrection from happening...like the D&D troll, where you gotta burn it.  Or a Highlander...cut off the head.  Otherwise, there's no limit.  The rules (6E1 274) also describe the character's state...no, he's not fully healed, but he starts getting normal Recoveries, and his regen continues.

The price, the method...at GM discretion.  It is a STOP sign adder, so even buying it with character points is not a given...especially in 5E, where it's cheaper.  (The Regen itself is MUCH cheaper, the Resurrect less so, but still...it's 6 points less, IIRC.)  To allow someone to resurrect someone else...that's "do what you want."  In my experience, personal regen is *extremely* rare in all genres, for PCs and NPCs.  Some monsters have it, or something close enough to it, but that's pure Plot Device.  It's generally possible only in fairly high-magic fantasy...and even then, I think, it's rare in fantasy literature that isn't tied to, or inspired by, a gaming system.  Garion did it twice in Eddings...once was a horse, which was setting it up so he could do it with Durnik...but that was plot device * prophecy * deus ex machina.  I remember Joel Rosenberg's Guardians of the Flame series...which had ties to D&D, albeit loosely.  One significant character had to be resurrected, and it was a HUGE!!! deal.  In fantasy, it's usually connected to divine magic...and it's always just about the highest expression of divine power.

In supers...geeze, I can remember 1 character whose major power was "personal statis."  He activated the power, and his body simply did not change.  Couldn't get sick, couldn't get poisoned.  Damaged?  FAST regeneration.  Chest blown out...which happened at one point...his whole body would pull itself together in moments.  And it freaked everyone out when it happened.  Construct-style duplicators...not biological bodies, but essentially energy forms...it's the norm that blowing away one of the duplicates means nothing, as the progenitor can always make more.  In Hero, it's easiest to say the dups have Resurrection, but I don't think many of us would consider it's the same thing.

In high-tech fantasy...if resurrection is even possible, you're basically playing high-magic fantasy, substituting a blaster for a wand.  Medicine is well-advanced, most of the time...so the notion of "dead" shifts.  Brain death is the key...as it can be even now.  A complete cardiac arrest isn't fatal...until the brain stops functioning.  Before that, it's just dying;  when brain activity ceases, it's Dead.  I can't offhand think of a case where resurrection is possible...unless it's pure plot device, like Tony's Snap, or *maybe* a case where you have a god-like alien, or insanely, ridiculously advanced tech.  (At which point, it's just high fantasy, IMO.)  

My preference is, bringing someone back from the dead in a game should be a campaign-level event...it should notably impact the entire storyline from there on out.  If it's easy, and relatively low-cost...then where's the risk?  Where's the dramatic tension?  

Article this morning in The Athletic.  The headline:  Gambling has made ends of games miserable for college basketball benchwarmers.  The example was when a kid made a 3 at the end of the game, so his team won by 28, rather than 25.

The line was -26.5.

Post-game?  Spoilered for masked profanity...

And apparently, this is the norm...particularly in cases like this, where the play changed the outcome insofar as the line bet...one of THE most common...was concerned.  

It's a pretty scary, ugly story.  It may be paywalled...and unlike NYT, I don't see how to link it....but just in case....

https://theathletic.com/5384328/2024/04/02/gambling-college-basketball-players-substitutes-spread/?source=pulsenewsletter&campaign=9442176&userId=11136959

The Iowa-LSU basketball game...a rematch of last year's title game, drew...you want to sit down for this...

Sitting?  Good.

12.3 million viewers on average, with a peak of 16 million.

From the Athletic, this was

Quote

Higher than any other women’s college basketball game ever. The previous high: 9.9 million average viewers, which came … last year for LSU’s national-title win over Iowa.

More than every NBA game last season outside of Game 5 of the Finals, every MLB game last season and all but five of college football’s matchups. 

Bold mine.  Story also notes that the follow-on UConn vs. USC matchup drew a tidy 6.7 million.  These were Elite 8 games, too...not the title game, not Final Four.